LCD Buyer's Guide

[xtknight]

Originally posted by: Starbuck1975
Just curious as to why the 19? NEC MultiSync 90GX2 didn't make the cut for recommended monitors.

I went to a Micro Center today to once again compare monitors, and did a side by side comparison to the 90GX2 and Viewsonic VX922. The Viewsonic I believe as a faster response time, but the color clarity and intensity on the 90GX2 was astonishing despite the glare of its Opticlear coating.

On checking each company's website, the Viewsonic comes in at 2ms and the NEC at 4ms.

Tom's Hardware Guide measured the response time and it was definitely subpar: http://www.tomshardware.com/2006/03/27/...spring_2006_lcd_collection/page19.html

Compare that to the VX922's graph: http://www.tomshardware.com/2006/03/27/...spring_2006_lcd_collection/page35.html

They didn't like other aspects of the 90GX2 either. I was hoping it would be as good as their 20WMGX2 but it certainly fell short.

 

[Starbuck1975]

Fair enough...I will be curious to see if Tom's Hardware adds some of the 20.1" spring models to their analysis, as that will probably be the decisive point for me.

 

[Zebo]

Originally posted by: Starbuck1975
Just curious as to why the 19? NEC MultiSync 90GX2 didn't make the cut for recommended monitors.

I went to a Micro Center today to once again compare monitors, and did a side by side comparison to the 90GX2 and Viewsonic VX922. The Viewsonic I believe as a faster response time, but the color clarity and intensity on the 90GX2 was astonishing despite the glare of its Opticlear coating.

On checking each company's website, the Viewsonic comes in at 2ms and the NEC at 4ms.

Both TN's. both suck - non blacks, poor color, poor view angles, major back light bleed on Vx922 ...NECs opticlear helps a little with contrast on the NEC but if you took several home like me from frys you'd return both and get 20WMGX2 AS-IPS. Night and day..that's why it cost 2x more.


Whatever you do don't trust reviews - trust you own eyes they are best judge out there.

 

[Zebo]

dp

 

[darXoul]

Originally posted by: xtknight

Tom's Hardware Guide measured the response time and it was definitely subpar: http://www.tomshardware.com/2006/03/27/...spring_2006_lcd_collection/page19.html

Compare that to the VX922's graph: http://www.tomshardware.com/2006/03/27/...spring_2006_lcd_collection/page35.html

They didn't like other aspects of the 90GX2 either. I was hoping it would be as good as their 20WMGX2 but it certainly fell short.

That's a premature and hasty conclusion. The 90GX2 is considered by far the best gaming display in Europe, most people who tried the NEC and VX922 or 930BF claim the NEC is by miles superior. The graphs on THG don't mean squat, to be honest. The VX924 scored very poorly in this test but side by side, it certainly ain't slower than the VX922 - which was measured as the quickest monitor ever produced.

Be careful with these graphs, on lesnumeriques you can clearly see that the 90GX2 is as good as VX922. I've read countless user reports, e.g. on prad.de. They all claim the NEC is on par with both ViewSonics, with better color, decent angles for a TN display and pretty good blacks. I can confirm this because my friend bought the 70GX2 last week, and actually I was amazed at how good a TN panel could look.

A few users even claim that 90GX2 exhibits a LESS pronounced motion blur than both 20WGX2 and VX922. According to them, all three show virtually no ghosting (though the slower bwb transition may hamper the 20WGX2 in some situations) but the 90GX2 shows a pretty sharp image even in high speed games, on the contrary to the other displays. This I have yet to verify but it looks like this monitor can't simply "suck" like Zebo said. Yes, it's TN, but according to many, it's the best TN out there.

BTW, I wonder why its color is listed everywhere @ 16.77M. It's a TN, it should be 16.2. The 70GX2 is listed @ 16.2M.

 

[darXoul]

http://www.bonafidereviews.com/article.php?id=147&page=1

Review of the new IPS-based Philips 230WP7NS 23" widescreen monitor. A crappy one though, IMO

 

[xtknight]

Originally posted by: darXoul
The VX924 scored very poorly in this test but side by side, it certainly ain't slower than the VX922 - which was measured as the quickest monitor ever produced.

Weren't there two revisions of the VX924 though?

Be careful with these graphs, on lesnumeriques you can clearly see that the 90GX2 is as good as VX922. I've read countless user reports, e.g. on prad.de. They all claim the NEC is on par with both ViewSonics, with better color, decent angles for a TN display and pretty good blacks. I can confirm this because my friend bought the 70GX2 last week, and actually I was amazed at how good a TN panel could look.

You're right...I suppose even if the graph were true the 90GX2 would still be a good gaming monitor. The VP191b has a steep response curve for the lower tones but for the rest I find it (my VP930b actually) great for gaming, can't even notice the ghosting. The VX922 just looked like it was a lot faster and I usually trust THG. ViewSonics have lots of backlight issues which irks me so I'll add the 90GX2 above it. I'll keep the VX922 in case people don't like the contrast coating/price of the 90GX2. I did find it hard to believe a 19" NEC with the same suffix would be crap while the 20" one was the best thing on the planet.

BTW, I wonder why its color is listed everywhere @ 16.77M. It's a TN, it should be 16.2. The 70GX2 is listed @ 16.2M.

So I'm told, the new dithering interpolates to 9-bit and makes up for the last few missing dark tones. End effect is 16.77m colors (full 8-bit scale).

 

[tommy2q]

xtknight

you're recommending the Dell UltraSharp 2007WFP for gaming, movies, and general usage. what do you think of the 2007FP? would the 2007FP be just as good except for the different aspect ratio and resolution?

 

[darXoul]

Originally posted by: xtknight
So I'm told, the new dithering interpolates to 9-bit and makes up for the last few missing dark tones. End effect is 16.77m colors (full 8-bit scale).

Probably. The manual confirms:

- 70GX2: 16,194,277 colors
- 90GX2: 16,777,216 colors

so I guess they're not talking out of their butts

 

[Robocop]

Originally posted by: darXoul
http://www.bonafidereviews.com/article.php?id=147&page=1

Review of the new IPS-based Philips 230WP7NS 23" widescreen monitor. A crappy one though, IMO

Well, I just bought it from Newegg...so we shall see soon...I will post opinion and pics when I get it...

 

[xtknight]

Originally posted by: tommy2q
xtknight

you're recommending the Dell UltraSharp 2007WFP for gaming, movies, and general usage. what do you think of the 2007FP? would the 2007FP be just as good except for the different aspect ratio and resolution?

Unfortunately the 2007FP has some color scale problems (banding) so I'm not sure what to recommend for 20" non-widescreen for movies. For general usage, the Samsung 214t should be great.

 

[TheSlamma]

I'm still on my 21" Trinitron so sorry for the n00b question.

When I was walking through Microcenter the other day I saw a few LCD's with a protective glass screen built into the monitor. Is there a specific name for that?

I'd really like to have that in a widescreen thats decent for gaming and movies if there is a model out that fits that criteria.

 

[xtknight]

Originally posted by: TheSlamma
I'm still on my 21" Trinitron so sorry for the n00b question.

When I was walking through Microcenter the other day I saw a few LCD's with a protective glass screen built into the monitor. Is there a specific name for that?

I'd really like to have that in a widescreen thats decent for gaming and movies if there is a model out that fits that criteria.

X-Brite and OptiClear, contrast coatings. NEC's 20WMGX2 (20" widescreen) has it.

 

[Zebo]

Originally posted by: darXoul

Originally posted by: xtknight

Tom's Hardware Guide measured the response time and it was definitely subpar: http://www.tomshardware.com/2006/03/27/...spring_2006_lcd_collection/page19.html

Compare that to the VX922's graph: http://www.tomshardware.com/2006/03/27/...spring_2006_lcd_collection/page35.html

They didn't like other aspects of the 90GX2 either. I was hoping it would be as good as their 20WMGX2 but it certainly fell short.

That's a premature and hasty conclusion. The 90GX2 is considered by far the best gaming display in Europe, most people who tried the NEC and VX922 or 930BF claim the NEC is by miles superior. The graphs on THG don't mean squat, to be honest. The VX924 scored very poorly in this test but side by side, it certainly ain't slower than the VX922 - which was measured as the quickest monitor ever produced.

Be careful with these graphs, on lesnumeriques you can clearly see that the 90GX2 is as good as VX922. I've read countless user reports, e.g. on prad.de. They all claim the NEC is on par with both ViewSonics, with better color, decent angles for a TN display and pretty good blacks. I can confirm this because my friend bought the 70GX2 last week, and actually I was amazed at how good a TN panel could look.

A few users even claim that 90GX2 exhibits a LESS pronounced motion blur than both 20WGX2 and VX922. According to them, all three show virtually no ghosting (though the slower bwb transition may hamper the 20WGX2 in some situations) but the 90GX2 shows a pretty sharp image even in high speed games, on the contrary to the other displays. This I have yet to verify but it looks like this monitor can't simply "suck" like Zebo said. Yes, it's TN, but according to many, it's the best TN out there.

BTW, I wonder why its color is listed everywhere @ 16.77M. It's a TN, it should be 16.2. The 70GX2 is listed @ 16.2M.

I don't just say it I tried them. Look, nothing comes close to 20WMGX2 so it's difficult to give a fair shot. Yes the 90GX2 is probably one of the best 19"s but it falls far short of thier 20 that's all. Poor color relative, poor viewangles relative, greyer blacks relative..

As far as reviewers go I don't trust them anymore but my own eyes. The calibration techniques they use are either none like Extreme who complained about brightness, an adjustable feature, or limited. Also there are driver settings which makes world of difference with motion blur. e.g. vsync even blurs on CRT from my observation and render ahead by more than 0 makes laggy feeling. Do they have drivers set consistant during these tests? I doubt it. Third is instrumentation they use does'nt observe like eyeball. Which is why you get inconsistant results with users under subjective observation like me and BEHARDWARE - who say some LCD blacks are blacker to the eyeball over a high end AG CRT dispite insturmentation saying the opposite. Also BEHARDWARE said contrast of NEC LCD20WGX2 was superior to eye but fall short with instrumentation. Just another example of eye and and instruments observing very differently. All that matters is the eye.

Bottom line and what I was trying to convey to Starbuck1975 is try several before committing to an opinion. Sorry it has to be so hard, and perhaps expensive if you live in a country with poor return policy - but there is no "one size fits all" consensous, with monitors it's in eye of beholder.

 

[darXoul]

Heh, Zebo, I agree of course. An empiric check is all that matters, I also don't give a damn about numeric measurements. I'll go and check both out tomorrow or even later today. There is a small, funny store near my bank's HQ (where I work) that sells new LCDs and used high end CRTs. For some monitors, the guys have the best prices in Poland. If something is in stock, you can usually also check pixels before buying. I heard the return policy was also good. I'll simply have the two monitors compared head to head.

As for reaction time, the 90GX2 should be faster - it has larger pixels and 4/8 response times vs. 6/12 of the 20WGX2. As for viewing angles, I've seen the 20WGX2, and it's of course clearly superior to any TN panel. Colors are not necessarily crisper or more vibrant but perhaps "truer". The issue is of course size. 1280*1024/960 is simply small on this monitor, and this is what bugs me.

I've rearranged my room a little so OptiClear should only provide advantages now, with its better perceived (though not measured) contrast. Reflections shouldn't be an issue.

LOL how about I buy two - 90GX2 for non-ws gaming, 20WGX2 for everything else

BTW, the 20WGX2 costs about $692, the 90GX2 - $486. Damn, it's so hard to decide. Anyway, I've decided I don't want to buy an even larger CRT, so I trashed the idea of purchasing the ViewSonic P227fB in Germany. Unless of course, both LCDs totally disappoint me in games

 

[Starbuck1975]

Bottom line and what I was trying to convey to Starbuck1975 is try several before committing to an opinion. Sorry it has to be so hard, and perhaps expensive if you live in a country with poor return policy - but there is no "one size fits all" consensous, with monitors it's in eye of beholder.

You are right...although after comparing several of the 19" and 20.1" LCDs recommended in the OP, my naked eye alone couldn't notice a difference that made one monitor preferred to another.

The NEC monitors do provide much more intense colors due to the Opticlear coating, but I can see that glossy finish causing a problem with glare in certain situations...that, and the NEC monitors are at the high end of the pricing bracket.

The Viewsonic monitors were appealing, but didnt blow me away, but they are competitively priced, and the VX922 does come well reviewed by gamers, which is its target demographic.

I haven't had a chance to see the Dell monitors in person, and enough people have cautioned about their production quality...but they also have outstanding customer service when it comes to honoring their warranties, which is something to take into consideration. I can get the Dell 2007wfp on sale and with a 5 year warranty for the same price as the Viewsonic 2025wm.

 

[Golgatha]

This post is full of great info. Why was the sticky removed?

 

[MarkShot]

Does anyone know what happened to the NEC 2190UX. That was the LCD which I decided to wait for as the vendors hadn't received it yet.

I just went to NEC's US LCD site and it is no longer in the product list.

Did they cancel it?

Thanks.

 

[xtknight]

Originally posted by: Golgatha
This post is full of great info. Why was the sticky removed?

It just expires from time to time, it's renewed now.

 

[ZtL]

I'm sorry if this has been adressed already, it's just that this thread is pretty packed.

My question is how close are LCDs to preforming close to crt with an acceptable cost? For instance, there's a distiction between gaming at maximum speed and gaming with better contrast and acceptable speed, so they can't be perfect yet. I've been looking for a flat monitor for serious gaming for a few years, but theyre so expensive when they get close to crt performance. How much difference would you notice between the max gaming moniters and the higher contrast ones, and how close are the max gaming ones to solid performance? I have no problem waiting longer for a monitor and I'm just hoping for a clearer picture of where the technology is right now and when I should buy--I really don't want to pay more than 400 for a monitor. Thanks.

 

[xtknight]

Welcome to the forums.

Originally posted by: ZtL
My question is how close are LCDs to preforming close to crt with an acceptable cost?

Sorry, I don't know, that's a very subjective issue and you'd have to see for yourself.

How much difference would you notice between the max gaming moniters and the higher contrast ones, and how close are the max gaming ones to solid performance?

Many people are happy with how they are now and many aren't. I have liked both a "max gaming" display (Samsung 710T back in the day) and a "higher contrast acceptable gaming" display (ViewSonic VP930b). I didn't find one easier than the other. The acceptable gaming ones are only really inferior to "max gaming" ones in darker tones, but in those they are quite inferior.

 

[ZtL]

Many people are happy with how they are now and many aren't. I have liked both a "max gaming" display (Samsung 710T back in the day) and a "higher contrast acceptable gaming" display (ViewSonic VP930b). I didn't find one easier than the other. The acceptable gaming ones are only really inferior to "max gaming" ones in darker tones, but in those they are quite inferior.

So they lose some color definition when displaying darker things?

Sorry, I don't know, that's a very subjective issue and you'd have to see for yourself.

What about crt performance in general? I can understand how acceptable cost would be subjective, but what just getting away from the steep prices that occur at the high-end? When do you think near-crt performance might happen without those costs, or has it already?

Thanks again for response, and really whole thread, it's very helpful.

 

[xtknight]

Originally posted by: ZtL
So they lose some color definition when displaying darker things?

I mean, the ones with the higher contrast tend to be slower at moving dark things, but they do display dark things well when they're still.

What about crt performance in general? I can understand how acceptable cost would be subjective, but what just getting away from the steep prices that occur at the high-end? When do you think near-crt performance might happen without those costs, or has it already?

I think CRT performance is at the NEC 20WMGX2 $800 level right now, but many prefer their $300 LCDs to their old CRTs too. If you mean speed, the $300 LCDs are as fast as you can get (the $800 one is also very fast). For viewing angles, the $800 one is the best, likewise for colors it is also the best. For text, all LCDs are better than CRTs in my mind. I'm really not sure how resolution scaling compares at the different price points.

 

[ZtL]

Oh, alright, clear to me now. Thanks again, xtknight.

 

[xtknight]

Originally posted by: ZtL
Oh, alright, clear to me now. Thanks again, xtknight.

Yup...sorry I couldn't give you an absolute answer on CRT vs LCD, but like I say, some people like their $300 LCDs better than their $500 CRTs, and obviously vice versa. Some advantages mean more than other advantages for some. I will take the clarity of an LCD even if the colors are a little inferior, but others may want the colors regardless of the clarity.